asked the Minister for Lands whether he approves of the Land Commission issuing a warrant under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, to the sheriff of Sligo for land annuity due by James Reilly, Receivable Order 23845 (Druminshingore, County Leitrim), for the gale payable May 1st, 1937, while the tenant purchaser was awaiting an answer to his letter to the Irish Land Commission dated July 22nd, 1936, and when the tenant purchaser had received no six-day notice from the Land Commission in respect of the gale now to be levied for.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Issue of Land Annuity Warrant.
A warrant under Section 28, Land Act, 1933, was issued by the Land Commission on the 2nd October for recovery of the instalment of land purchase annuity due on the 1st of May, 1937, on the holding at Druminshingore, occupied by James Reilly. A six day notice in respect of this instalment was issued on the 16th June, 1937.
There is no trace in the Land Commission of the receipt of a letter from Mr. Reilly dated the 22nd July, 1936.
The Land Commission are under a statutory obligation to collect land purchase annuities, and the question of my approval of the issue of a warrant in this or in any other case does not therefore arise.
Firstly, may I ask if the Minister does not think that the action of the Land Commission was somewhat precipitate in issuing a warrant under Section 28 within a couple of months of the gale falling due, and, secondly, is the Minister aware that, whether the six-day notice issued from his Department or not, it never reached the tenant purchaser?
Mr. Boland
I am not aware of that and I do not think the Deputy is aware of it, either. The fact is that it was issued, and this gentleman has been in the habit of paying up after he gets the sheriff's notice, and not before.
After he gets the sheriff's decree?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
The Minister states that on previous occasions it was found necessary to issue warrants before the Land Commission could get the annuities?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Does the Minister not think that the time was unusually short, in this instance, between the gale day and the issuing of the warrant?
Mr. Boland
I do not think so and I think the Deputy ought to have made certain before saying that we got a letter from the man on the 22nd July. We say we did not get it. The last letter we got from him was on the 10th September, 1935.
He says that he did not get your six-day notice and you say that you did not get his letter. I ask the Minister whether he considers it right to put the costs on any tenant purchaser so short a time after the gale falls due. No one would complain if the gale were six months or a year due and the warrant was then issued, but does the Minister think it right to put costs on a tenant purchaser within a couple of months of the gale falling due?
Mr. Boland
The Deputy is changing his ground. He suggested that the man did not get the six-day notice and now, when he hears that the six-day notice was issued, he wants to know if I consider it right to put costs on a tenant purchaser. I should prefer to see no costs put on anybody, but, as the Deputy is aware, we must get the land annuities. If a man does not pay, he knows that there are going to be certain costs but costs less than they used to be under the old system.
That is a matter of opinion. Does the Minister not think that in this particular case the warrant was issued in a shorter time than is customary after the gale day?
Mr. Boland
I do not think so.
I would ask the Minister to look into it because I do not think it fair to issue warrants within two or three months of the gale day.